Jerry, I know a little about you. You seem to be someone I would like to ask a few questions. There are a few snafus I am trying to work out. Flyinghigher9 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a second deletion review of Jack Wilshire. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. as fully expected he started today for Arsenal F.C.. Could an Admin please restore the article ASAP so as to not waste someone who knows no better's time starting to write a new article from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues
Sorry Jerry, I came across some old taggings of yours in image deletion cases (Image:BrianUNM.JPG) and then checked a bit in your upload log. I find a few problematic cases there. Please check:
I refuse to review these images, based on a bad faith comment you left on an image description page. I feel you are baiting me into an argument and I will not have it. Please see your talk page for more details. Somebody else will undoubtedly sort out these images when the end of the review period comes due. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no matter what others said, you should never have "closed" an issue that involved your own upload (you could have helped out closing others if there was such a backlog and you wanted to make yourself useful); and especially it really doesn't look good that you put the authoritative {{rk}} on it, when there really was no review process whatsoever other than your own.
I have no problem if you don't want to look at the images again - they are all speedy deletion candidates in the absence of further input, I can handle that alright. Just thought I'd give you the usual heads-up.
And, by the way, I have honestly no recollection that we had any such issue before. It may well be the case, but I honestly can't remember ever having interacted with you. Fut.Perf.☼13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized, I probably should have involved you in this discussion since you closed the original AFD for which Accounting4Taste G4'd the recreation. Anyhow, User:Syb has improved the article to the point where A4T & I feel that it addresses the reasons for the original deletion as such I moved the userfy'd article back into the mainspace and restored the revisions for GFDL attribution and noted the same on the article's talk page. I hope I haven't done anything too off-base here. Please let me know if I have. –xeno (talk)15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that relist when I read over the article. My mistake, I certainly would not have closed it had I noticed it. I'll restore the AfD. Wizardman03:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you watch Afd debate of NimbleX? All contributors except nominator voted for keep and you decided to delete the page. The nominator's claim was about notability, although contributors mentioned several independent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaribi (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "all contributors except nominator", you mean "both contributors", one being an IP that has only ever made one edit, that being the !vote in the AfD. The IP made essentially the exact argument as the other (yourself), and that argument was countered by a valid counter-argument that the sources mentioned were self-referential, self-published, personal blogs and the like. This left the only valid argument being the nominator's. Therefore I determined that there had been adequate review and discussion to find a consensus for delete. If you disagree, feel free to file a deletion review. Thanks, Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some sources like this one on "start Linux page" www.linux.org the nominator did not say anything. But may be it is best to wait for few days and rewrite the article with a lot of positive and negative references. Google returns 400,000 pages on this topic, about 500 of them are dissimilar, including some articles from computer magazines. Still I can not find scientific article, however.Megaribi (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for consulting me on my protection of this image. I agree that the big hoopla on this image has passed, and that protection is no longer warranted. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely kind and patient with people who make a genuine effort of understanding our policies and acting on them. I am somewhat less patient with people who simply want to dodge and circumvent the policies in order to push as many pretty images into their favourite articles as they can. I am not patient at all with people who lie and cheat about their images. And I'm growing more and more impatient with people who hypocritically turn up at my talk page to badger me. Just go and do something else. I am not interested in discussing my behaviour with you in particular. Fut.Perf.☼05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new Wikipedia user and my first article was deleted yesterday, less than a day after I wrote it. It was entitled "Avakit".
I would like to ask 2 things, but please tell me if I am going about it the wrong way since I am not sure yet how this works, I just clicked on the Discussion tab to write to you:
I would like to request a copy of the article that was deleted please because I don't have any backup of the text I wrote
Is there any way to make it more interesting or to fix it in your opinion? Or is it simply not Wikipedia material?
15:31, 22 August 2008 Ian13 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Avakit" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
I also see from your user page that an editor has already explained why the article was deleted, and that another admin, User:Aqwis, has already provided you with a copy of the deleted content at User:Avazed/Avakit.
I will add a welcome template to your userpage which has lots of helpful links to our policies, guidelines, and the manual of style. I recommend that you review these links, and if you still have questions, feel free to ask me. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove your comments, I removed a tag you placed; there's a key difference between the two on Wikipedia, and I'm sure you can appreciate that. I removed my edit summary which you transposed as an unsigned comment. I would encourage you to move your comment (on the tag being removed and restored) to the talk page, as it does not contribute to the actual deletion review discussion. user:j (aka justen) 18:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the conclusion that you are correct. Since the ambox was primarily worded in such a manner as to address the nominator and make a suggestion. By deleting the ambox, you were essentially saying "I've read your request and have decided not to oblige it." And since none of that contributes to the evaluation of the deletion under review, it is entirely appropriate for it to be removed from the discussion page. I am disappointed that editors choose to hold DRV's without prior discussion, but that is an entirely separate issue. I am considering placing some text at the bottom of the ambox template such as: "nominator may remove this tag at anytime' any other editor may remove it after this review discussion has significant participation by others." Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the the change from "required" to "encouraged" was a good one. Adding the disclaimer at the bottom probably isn't incredibly necessary... Well, maybe the part about "once discussion is underway" is helpful. If the nominator for deletion review strongly feels the tag should be removed, they (like me) would normally just remove it (even without the disclaimer). On the other hand, maybe a nudge once the discussion has begun is helpful. Thanks for considering my concerns earlier. Take care, user:j (aka justen) 19:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jerry! Just as an FYI, the template {{talkheader}} is only meant to be used when necessary - as it says on the template page, "Using the template is suggested for talk pages that are very active or have had policy violation problems. This template should be used only when needed." Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to say you can't, but it's unnecessary, contributes to "talk page clutter" and extra work (both you putting it on and someone else maybe taking it off). But that's just my opinion, and the general consensus of the people that created (and use) the template... :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only use it on talk pages for articles that have survived AfD. These articles, by definition, have been the subject of controversy, or at least of editors in conflict. It seems likely that these talk pages will be a venue for discussion among editors who begin out of disagreement, and therefore, the template seems like a good idea to me. By the way, the template is added as part of the {{topmatter}} template, which is suggested in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Having read the talk page fo0r the template, and the various TfD's, I do not see any consensus against its use on any page where an editor feels it is possibly useful. It was just shot down as boilerplate and discouraged for use on empty pages. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs21:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that all articles that go through an AfD are by definition "the subject of controversy". I know there are many articles that are nominated for AfD in a rote manner, not because of any "controversy". The documentation for {{talkheader}} says it's "for talk pages that are very active or have had policy violation problems". If, when you're closing an AfD, you think the template is needed, by all means, add it. But if the talk page was not very active, and you're adding the AfD notice to an all but empty page, perhaps it doesn't belong? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"or at least of editors in conflict" was an important part of the sentence you quoted. By that, I mean an editor created an article, which presumably means he or she wants (or at least wanted) the article to exist. And a nominator created the AfD, which presumably means that he or she did NOT want the article to exist. That defines a conflict of opinion, (albeit potentially amicably-so). I do not find the contents of the template to be radically specific to contentious battles, in fact it provides some nice links and includes an automatic listing of talk page archives now. That the original template designer(s) wanted it to be used for one specific purpose should not restrict my use of it. I also do not see any evidence of a consensus-forming process to determine or "bless" those instructions to be included in the template documentation; it rather instead seems like one or a few editor's personal opinion. I always reserve the right to disagree with most anyone's opinion. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, you asked the question "Can't I just ignore that rule and put it on any talk page I want?" This is Wikipedia - you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't disrupt the encyclopedia. But there are valid reasons *not* to put it on "any talk page I want" - and I've pointed out a couple. I'd request that you not simply add the template when closing an AfD, since I don't believe (IMO) an AfD is always "editors in conflict" so much as just editors in process. But that's just my request :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard your request, and given it due consideration. I don't agree with you, obviously, and I do plan to continue to add the template to all article talk pages where I close the corresponding AfD as keep. This has been my practice for many months, now, and I can not see how anyone could possibly make a case that any disruption is caused. The nice thing is that on wikipedia, editors such as yourself and myself can disagree amicably and still edit together and help build and maintain the project. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs01:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FPAS
I was just reading that, having seen the outcome of the Chillenden photo deletion review. Basically I agree with what is claimed, but have never done a RFC before. Do I simply sign in the "Endorse" section or do I need to / may I add comments whilst signing? Mjroots (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not giving you suggestions or advice on how to contribute to this specific RFC, I will answer your question about contributing to RFC's in general. If you have additional concerns, or additional evidence that you wish to provide, or if your desired outcome is not the same as the existing section, then you can endorse or not endorse the existing section and still add your own section. If you add your own section, you should include all of the section formatting as the original, and you must endorse your own section by signing. If you simply wish to register your complete agreement with the original poster, then you can simply sign the section for endorsement, as I did, and then not bother to add your own section. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Although my last concern about another deletionist BetaCommand yielded criticism that I should refrain from being concerned about such people. I'll have a look later. I take it he is continuing to delete useful or irreplaceble fair use images despite consensus to keep them. Abusing his tools? The Bald OneWhite cat16:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great opportunity for a discussion to attempt to see each other's point of view and find a workable solution that will meet each person's expectations and make the project more enjoyable and efficient. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure that RfC's are an efficient way of dealing with problems, but they certainly help people understand and appreciate other points of view. ˉˉanetode╦╩01:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I certainly agree with you, that RFC's are by no means an efficient way of dealing with issues; but forcing people who refuse to acknowledge the perceived grievance of others to at least read and comment is a good step toward finding the workable solution we all yearn for. If achievable, the win-win solution is one that then makes wikipedia more efficient. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erich Feigl
I am disappointed at the decision to delete this article after rather inconclusive and inconsistent discussion. First, there was the "Prof" title which was wrongly given as one of the reasons for deletion. Please see my discussion on this. Second reason was about "notability", which was again found to be rather strange argument for a man who published 12 books, many of which are found in Amazon today and a google search results in over 10K hits and who is featured in German Wikipedia. After I countered these two original reasons for deletion, then came a general complaint about "bias", without any specifics or examples, about a biography after all. Lastly, you mentioned "lack of proper sources", which is again hard to understand as there are sources given, which can certainly be improved and should not have been a cause for deletion. In fact, in all this, I still did not encounter a single good argument or reason why this article deserved an outright deletion. I would like your help and guidance on this matter as I am a rookie user. Also, as I do not have access to the original material anymore, I would like your help in recovering it for a future improvement. Thanks.--24.46.20.158 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How very disappointing to write up an entire reply with wikilinks and dates and times, names and quoted details. 4 paragraphs. And when I submitted it, the server said "mySQL server is in read-only mode", so my reply is gone away. Now I go write it up again. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs22:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the article Erich Feigl, that was created on 23 June 2008 by Hudavendigar. The Coren search bot identified the text of the article as a copyright violation of www.monarchie.at, and tagged it as such. The webpage was later identified as the personal website of the subject of the article, (confirmed by WHOIS), which also presented verifiability problems, as well as neutrality issues, even though the article had been re-written to correct the original copyvio issue. It therefore became maintenance-tagged for verifiability and POV. It was later tagged for lacking secondary sources, and ultimately was nominated for deletion by Namsos on 29 JUN 2008.
Jayjg closed the deletion discussion after 5 days of discussion during which time the article was flagged for rescue and the discussion received significant participation. Jayjg determined the consensus as delete, but (in my opinion) left a cloudy and ambiguous, if not confusing closing summary.
The closing was contested at Deletion review on August 11th, and after a full 5-day listing period I closed the review as deletion endorsed. I further indicated that there would be no prejudice against creation of a properly sourced, neutral article.
A major problem with both Jayjg's closing summary, and most of the DRV discussion, seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the heirarchical application of our notability guidelines. The primary notability guideline is WP:N. Any article subject that passes the criteria of this guideline does not need to be scrutinized against any other guideline, no matter how appropriate the applicability of the guideline may seem to be. If it passes WP:N, then it IS notable, period. Some articles are not able to easily be shown to pass the narrow and vague criteria of WP:N. For these articles, there may be a supplemental guideline that fits the subject. If so, then these supplemental guidelines provide a second catchment, under which the article may be retained. So whether WP:PROF applied or not, was an invalid objection to deletion. In reality, the article was likely scrutinized against all of the supplemental notability guidelines, but nobody bothered to mention the ones that obviously did not apply. That the article was given a seconf chance (WP:BIO) and a third chance (WP:PROF) to pass notability does not mean that we were stricter in our scrutiny, but rather quite the opposite.
You do have the option to submit another DRV to have the AfD closing and/ or my closing of the DRV reviewed. I do not think this will yield any practical results, as other administrators continuously review eachother's DRV closings, and if I got it wrong, I would have undoubtedly been told so by now, 2 weeks later.
Thank you for the explanations and time taken. I am obviously not satisfied. I still feel that standards for this particular article seem to have been continuously increased above what is reasonable and necessary and norm in spite of mine and other efforts to improve and respond. It is still not clear to me how the article fails the WP:N criteria for example and the above explanations have shed little light on this. The reason for request for the material in its last form was becuase it was cleaned up and not just by myself, but by a few other more experienced editors who had taken time (and pity probably!) to improve it.--Murat (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I just now made an agreement with myself that I will not read or edit the RFC page or its discussion page for one week. So please understand if I fail to reply to something posed to me there until next Monday or later. If something urgent comes up, then feel free to let me know here; I am willing to make a reasonable breach of my self-agreement, if it is deemed necessary by another editor. I am just trying to limit my involvement now, and to be less obsessive about it. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to temporarily withdraw, that's fine, I can well understand that. Wish I could do it too. But I must still insist, please first remove your signatures from the main page. This is important. It's a question of honour, mine as well as yours. I want to see my name cleared from the accusations you raised, and as long as that's not happened, I can't accept you have a moral right to speak up among those who make themselves judges of my behaviour. Please do the honourable thing and retract. Fut.Perf.☼07:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make a deal! You agree to my proposed resolutions and I will withdraw. In fact I will actively campaign to the others to withdraw, which I am fairly confident I could pull off. In fact, I think if the RFC winds up with less than 2 "certifiers", it is actually considered null, and could possibly be moved to something other than WP:RFC/..., perhaps just a user talk subpage in your userspace, like User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Concerns. Just like it never happened (almost).
If you can not agree to any of the proposed resolutions, then let's work together to reword them to a form to which you could agree. My resolutions, I think, are fairly unobtrusive, and show good faith more than require any real change in your resolve to patrol image space uploads. Mostly about being nicer to folks and refraining from engaging in some very specific and utterly non-essential editing patterns. You do not have to admit fault or accept blame, you can just agree to the terms out of a spirit of cooperation and an intention to demonstrate to people that their opinions are valuable to you. What say you, Fut. Perf, do we have a deal? This could all be over with in less than a week. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just to explain my temporary withdrawal from the discussion, it is because I felt the discussion became a one-on-one near real-time conversation just between you and I, which is not the intention of RFC. RFC is intended to be a wider discussion with the opportunity for cooler heads to help steer the discussion toward a valuable outcome. With you and I posting back and forth to eachother every couple of minutes, it was clear that this purpose was being disrupted. Therefore I felt the best thing for the process was for me to back off for a bit. I am sure you can understand that. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't want you to withdraw after I agreed and you got your way. I want you to withdraw unconditionally because you wronged me. Fut.Perf.☼13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At your request, and against my agreement with myself, I have replied to your post, as linked above. I still intend to continue my 1 week wikibreak from the RFC. Therefore, if there is some urgent matter that requires my review and or comment I will again require a notification, as I am not watching the discussion. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Jerry, you can't cop out that easily, not at this stage. This is an RfC also about you. You protested that I was trying to turn the RfC round against you. But that's just normal. An RfC always works both ways. You made a request for comments, so comments is what you gonna get. It's only fair, isn't it? As the instruction page says, "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."
Now, I'm not making accusations against you, I'm not blaming you for anything. I just want to get the facts straight, and I want you to take the natural, honest consequences of what happened. You were wrong about me. It turns out you were extremely wrong about me. For more than a year, you must have misunderstood and misremembered just about every single word I ever wrote to you, up to the point where you had phantasized a whole imagined story of wrongdoings. And of course you must have perceived everything you saw and heard of me during the last few days in the light of this misconception. Now, if that's because you were ill back at the time or whatever other reason, that's okay. You said "Sorry, now get over it" would be the right response at this point. No problem. But only if you are prepared to take the logical step that follows from your apology. After having been so wrong about me, it should be obvious that you cannot, indeed must not, pretend you are in a position to judge me. That's all I'm asking. If you want to take a part in finding constructive solutions for the future, talk about how to move on from here, fine, I'll welcome that. Make a fresh start. But: step back from everything that contains judgmental language about my actions or behaviour in the past or (indirectly) about my character.
I think this is a very reasonable demand on my part, and a very easy one for you to fulfill. It's an entirely symbolic little gesture of recognition. Just a few electrons on a screen. They don't hurt. Strike out those signatures. Then we can talk again, now or in a week or whenever you want. But that's an absolute precondition, without that there will be no further talk at all. Fut.Perf.☼21:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your so-called logic. I also do not agree that your demand is reasonable. I have outlined several times now, why my certification of the basis of the dispute and my endorsement of certain outside positions is still valid, without the rationale of the redacted comments. I have also told you that I do not intend to read or participate in the discussion for a week, unless I am asked to. This should give you more than ample time to establish a meaningful dialog with the other people who have expressed concerns. It may even be possible that the RFC would be closed before I become involved in it again.
I would further suggest that this situation between you and I is illustrative of the fundamental concern that has been expressed by others. While you are diligently patrolling image uploads and find that an editor has made an error, particularly if that editor seems hostile toward you, you lash out, in direct contrast to the instructions that have been provided in the image policy with respect to enforcement of NFCC/FUC compliance. You do not seem to allow somebody to be wrong and still attempt to work with them for the good of the project. Instead of taking the opportunity to teach the users how to adhere to the criteria, why the criteria is important, and in a manner that makes them want to continue to participate, you seem to mark them for abuse and can't get over it. In my case, you told me I was wrong, you told me where you looked and what you did not find. I agreed. Then you called for me to be beaten and killed by the king, instead of working with me to a fruititous outcome. Why is that? Why can you not set aside the wrong in what I said and look for the right?
As far as your ultimatum, I see that is hurting your position, and I would encourage you to reconsider. And just one more time, because I can't tell that you have gotten it yet, I did not make the request for comments. I merely certified the basis and offered my opinions and endorsed certain outside views. All within my purview, and all quite appropriate. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NEW DEAL:
If you talk with all 6 other people who certified the basis of the dispute and can convince just two of them to ask me to remove my name from the RFC mainpage, then I will do it.
If that fails, then if you speak with all of the people who endorsed the top section and can convince 50% of them ask me to remove my name, then I will do it.
If that fails, then if you get User talk:WJBScribe,User talk:DGG, and User talk:Keeper76 to ask me to do it I will. (Removed Will, because he is on the mediation committee, and that could be a conflict of interest.)
I submitted an article entitled "cloning gun" and I'd like to get some feedback regarding how to alter it to make it suitable for publication. It was deleted on the grounds that it was "blatant advertising" but it was not meant to be an advertisement and, in my opinion, its tone was less biased than most of the existing wikipedia articles I scrutinized before writing my own. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
You may want to discuss this with Athaenara or Alinnisawest, as they are familiar with the concerns they had. I think they are both pretty approachable and would be willing to calmly and patiently explain to you what the concerns were. If you need a copy of the deleted article, or if you don't get anywhere with them, feel free to ask. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FPaS
FPaS has deleted two images without putting them through the IfD process. Have added a note about this on the talk page of his RFC. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry: I hope you don't mind, I added a couple of paragraph breaks to your latest comment on the RfCU of FPaS so it was easier to read. I find that a overly long paragraph is very easy for the eye to skip over, and I didn't want your comment to be ignored. Please feel free to revert if you think I overstepped. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c)17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That kind of non-controversial edit is referred-to as "refactoring", and as long as it does not modify the meaning or intention or make any change in emphasis, is normally perfectly fine. Thanks for letting me know, though. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Site Restoration
The page I started about the company BetterTrades was deleted by the editor Coren, and the suggestion for deletion was made by JohnCD. I discussed this with both of the users, which I thought was resolved in Coren letting me know that he would either restore the page to my userspace, or give it to me by another means. It has been several days since I last followed up, and it's been nearly a week since the discussion began. I asked JohnCD what course of action I might take, and he referred me to a list of editors who can restore pages to users.
After looking at the pages of a few administrators (only briefly), I chose yours on the basis that you seemed the most likely to follow through on restoring the page so I could at least edit and do more research. I didn't take this to the Administrators' Notification page because my issue's not with Coren or JohnCD; I just wanted the page available to me, regardless of how. I'm willing to make another careful edit before I contest the permanence. Thanks for your time. Westcoastbiker (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]
I have userfied it to: User:Westcoastbiker/BetterTrades. Please do not repost it to mainspace until the concerns raised are addressed. You may choose to ask the deleting admin, myself, or some other experienced editors, just to be more certain it is okay, in order to prevent another speedy deletion. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is not the page that I started. Apparently someone else started a page about this company before, and it was deleted in their case as well. If the one that I started could please be assigned to my userspace, I would greatly appreciate it. If there is any confusion, it might be because I spelled the title without the case sensitive name, as "Bettertrades." Thank you for being so prompt with your help, and I will gladly refer the page to you before I make it public again. Westcoastbiker (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]
Thanks. I've modified the version I originally submitted, adding new references as well. The one I submitted is now at User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades. I would appreciate your commentary, and further, your support in publishing at this time or in the near future. Feel free to comment on the discussion page for it any time.Westcoastbiker (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]
New versions of deleted images
I'm in correspondance with someone involved with the restoration of Chillenden windmill and he has agreed to release three pictures of the mill being restored under a licence that will enable free use - either a CC licence or PD. One of the images will show the wreckage of the mill. Is it allowable to upload it under the original name, or will that make it liable for CSD as recreating a deleted image? Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original name is fine. If the individual has ever claimed copyright rights elsewhere (like a photograph sharing service or personal webage), then it would be necessary for the person to use the office request system to document the release of copyright. Otherwise, please just make sure you use the proper template to document the license and indicate the source of the image. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FPAS RFC
I've been bold and removed your signature from the RFC. Personally I have to say that I don't believe it was warrented as the purpose of an RFC is to listen to all viewpoints. Nevertheless, hopefully, it will remove a roadblock. If you feel my actions were unwarranted may I apologise in advance and feel free to revert or take further action if you fell it warrants it. Justintalk08:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW just out of curiousity, you used to edit using User:Jerry_Lavoie but I don't see much of an edit history. Is there an explanation there? Justintalk
I doubt that FPaS will be satisfied with another editor removing my signature from the page. He will probably say that his honor demands that I formally remove it or otherwise fall on my sword. But we will see how it goes. I certainly do not mind your good faith effort to get the process unstuck.
As for account histories; I believe that WP:USURP somehow combines the histories. if you review my answer to Q6 on RFA, you will see that the issue of alternate accounts has been addressed before. I do not know of any viewable log to see what time period each name was used for, or any way to see history for just one account. The user talk page and contribs seem to just become automatically merged somehow by the database. Jerrytalk ¤ count/logs13:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I understand your reasoning for deleting the Alison Angel entry. It honestly wasn't ready yet. The roommate and I were hanging out with a few drinks and were surprised there wasn't a page and decided to go for it. It was my first attempt and I didn't realize how fast people flag for deletion. We got past the first deletion attempt (made within hours of creation) but the second (a few days later) offered more scrutiny. I still believe Alison Angel is completely notable especially in certain niche markets.
Will you be able to point me in the right direction if I forward some notes and sources through this talk page? There were a few thing I questioned regarding guidelines (specifically linking to explicit material) so your input on that would be great. This is not a high priority so if you can take a few moments or forward it to someone who likes working on porn articles it would be awesome.
No problem helping you out with the guidance for editing this article. A good first step might be to "userfy" the deleted article (place it in your user space), where you can edit it. Then we can contain the discussion about it on the talk page for the article itself, as opposed to user talk pages. It would be necessary to send me a {{tb|Cptnono}} notification when you have asked something there, as I do not pay much attention to my watchlist (it is way too big). See User:Cptnono/Alison Angel. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one's easy, I was jealous of your otters! Captain Kangaroo was a famous kids' show host back in my day... I really admired him. When a fellow administrator recently referred to myself and another editor as "delusional and abusive kangaroos", It hit me: that's my cool TPH-like signature line! Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo01:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope we can be friends from this point forward. I also think more good is coming from the RFC, as I see some valuable discussion (initiated by you) on image deletion policy reform is occurring. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo13:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on that... the image description page for the one you linked in the RFC says to see the talk page for a description of the software program used to make the sheet music, but there is no talk page. I assume you originally uploaded to en-wiki (or some other local wiki) and then moved it to commons, where the talk page got trimmed off. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo13:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering why you closed this as a keep when the majority was in favour of deletion. I know AFD is not a vote count, but I didn't see any arguments that should have been discounted, and it was at most a "no consensus". Stifle (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination itself lacked any substantive argument for deletion. The opinion that a subject is not fit for an encyclopedia is akin to simply not liking it. I really feel that no articles should exist about Pokemon, regardless of how much coverage there is in reliable sources, but I recognize that wikipedia does not only cover what I like. Your argument, although not discounted, is by no means supported by consensus; have a read over WP:TIND (the 'no deadline' essay)... it is just as convincing as the essay you linked-to in your !vote. I agree that a reasonable close may have been no consensus, but in this case, where the nom was not valid, I felt it leaned over enough to keep to warrant calling it as such. I doubt a keep closure would get overturned at DRV to no consensus, and I am very certain that this one would not find support as delete at DRV. But, if you see it differently, feel free to submit it. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo21:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, I do not dislike XBRL International I just think it is a subject of to little concern for the encyclopaedia users. I feel about Pokemon the same way you do but I think it is a subject that belongs to world wide popular culture and that Pokemon will not benefit commercially for being on Wikipedia. The XBRL International article seems promotional to me, it lacks neutrality and has been authored by someone who declares that he works for that organization. Therefore I nominated it for deletion. Cheers, Lancet (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Elite Four members
I do think Mathbot is malfunctioning. The second listing on the logpage was still open, (I since closed it), and I am currently reviewing the rest. I believe I have seen this before with Mathbot, when there were template tag errors on a transcluded AfD. I will keep looking for the cause. Thanks for the reply. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody leaves off the template:ab at the bottom of an AfD when they close it, and then before it is repaired, somebody asks mathbot to recount the page, it will not see any of the AfD's below the afd with the error, and it will say the day is done. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eek - for a second I thought Mr.Z-man's script was causing problems, because that's what I used to close that AfD. I see it was malformed to begin with, though. Black Kite01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it was not your fault. But now that you know this glitch can occur with mathbot, you might want to make it a point to have a quick lookover before closing out an afd log. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be alarmed: I did mention you in a summary of an issue I'm having on the Admin. Noticeboard, but I wanted to let you know, and tell you that I didn't say anything defaming or offensive. I was just giving the most accurate narrative of my current issue as I could, and you were part of the story. Best wishes! Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker[reply]
Hello there. Could you add an brief introduction to this article. One has to read 3/4 of the article to find out even what an MJHL is, and the categories say the sport, which should be in the intro me thinks. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk01:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much, it is now much easier to follow from the get go, and the WWW visitor can decide immediately whether to continue or search elsewhere for the info they were seeking. I replaced the last sentence of the intro with a template which says the same thing. Kind Regards....SriMesh | talk02:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the heads up. I think it's fixed, I followed the creator's suggestions and haven't had any problems since then. Have a good night. TravellingCari04:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Let's say some press coverage of Chris Musni does occur such that I think the arguments for deletion would be addressed. How should I proceed?Gchuva (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request userfication of the article to allow you to improve it, then when it's ready submit a deletion review asking to move it back to mainspace. I'd be happy to userfy it for you, but I can not do that until tonight (like 14 hours from now). Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo13:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I went ahead and closed this XfD despite your relisting. I saw no need to keep the debate open as it will remain a controversial issue through the elections and it was clear that this would either be closed as "keep" or "no consensus."---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon05:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a scenario where I felt that it was appropriate to IAR. Generally, one shouldn't close an XfD that they participated in, but since I was going against my personal view, I felt that lends me a slight amount of credibility. It is harder for somebody to say that I closed it for partisan reasons because I went against my stance, somebody who hadn't was bound to get criticized from one side or the other.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you deleted that article?
Are you sure you do the right thing here at Wikipedia?
Maybe you can find another toy for kids somewhere else...
I assume you mean to simply ask me for an explanation of the deletion, and that you are actually assuming good faith on my part. That assumption made, I will endeavor to explain it to you shortly. Thank-you for the opportunity to discuss this deletion. I will be back shortly with more details. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were three participants in this discussion. The nominator, a named editor and an anon-ip. The nominator made a coherant argument for deletion that was consistent with the notability standards established by policy/ precedent/ guidelines/ community consensus. The named account stated that the subject was notable because it had a unique feature. This notion is not supported by our notability standards. Every gadget that comes out which has some feature not seen on similar gadgets does not get an article. The sources provided by this named account were all either:
Sites that evaluate every single distribution of linux-type operating systems as a magazine format. If I make a linux distro and call it kangaroolux, next month these sites will cover it.
Sites that are blogs and personal web-pages
Sites that are closely-related to the subject or its creators
There were no reliable sources provided by this editor.
The anon simply made an argument that was a variation of WP:ILIKEIT, saying it would be a very bad idea to delete the article. This argument was thrown away without any consideration, as is customary when determining consensus.
Again, thank-you for the opportunity to discuss this deletion with you. If you feel that there are valid reasons that this article should be kept, and/ or that I have failed to properly capture the consensus of this deletion discussion, please feel free to request a review at WP:DRV. If you require assistance in making that request, I would be more than happy to assist you, and will even submit the review for you, if you like. Sincerely, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo12:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Prior to posting further comments on my talk page, please review my talk page rules #1 and #2: here. Also you may wish to research what the term "unmotivated" means; I do not think that you understand it, based on how you used it in your comments above. See here or here. And here is an example of it used in a sentence: "the Supreme Court decision in his favor was totally impartial and unmotivated by political considerations". I think that all administrator actions should be unmotivated. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be able to use wikipedia for because I will be deployed to Afghanistan very shortly and I have no reason to hold it. Thats why I ask you to after you get this message to block my account. For I will have no need for it ever again. Nor will I ever use it again. Thank you for your time. Please do not reply as I will not be able to answer. Thank You. For The Last Time , Sincerly --Dt23 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Nevard
Hi there - yes, my fault - I was going to close this AfD yesterday and looked at it carefully. I then decided to wait for the AfD on Daylight Origins Society to close (as obviously if it was deleted the option to redirect there would not exist). When I saw this morning that the other AfD had closed as keep, I immediately went to this one and closed it, but didn't notice that while I was asleep you'd relisted it! It's not a problem, and I'll re-open it, though I think the result will be the same. Thanks, Black Kite20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually one editor did, perhaps you missed his comment. He said:
“
Redirection to the article Data (Star Trek) would be a better way of putting the matter on hold.
”
Perhaps you might want to ask that editor why he said that, if he did not mean it. He might have a better explanation for you. You can reach that editor's talk page by going to the very top of your screen, and clicking the blue link labelled "my talk". Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need reminding of my own comments. My nominal !vote was Keep and my mention of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, not an addition to it. Your interpretation is still puzzling. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the administrator mop does not include a tool that allows me to peer into the minds of discussion participants. I can only take what they literally put into the discussion and make a good faith attempt to interpret it correctly. I did this here, and I thought you realized from the nearly unanimous nature of the discussion that the article would be deleted, and were asking for redirection. If you meant some other unspecified thing, then I had no way of knowing that. Perhaps try to be more explicit in your recommendations in the future. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I noticed you've relisted a lot of AFD entries today, but you haven't removed them from September 12th's log to today's log (I've fixed this now). Did you forget, or are you using a script which hasn't worked? Black Kite22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
niether - I am keeping a list in Notepad, and plan to complete the relist all at once. I do not use scripts. I don't think it is a problem, as these AfD's have not made it to WP:AFDO yet. But if you think I should relist them all now I can do that. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Don't worry, I've moved them all already, as I wasn't sure if you were online. I only ask because I was using a re-listing script recently and had done a few before realising it was removing them from one log and not inserting them into the other! Cheers, Black Kite23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool, I probably should not be doing it the way I was doing it tonight. It was the first time I did it that way... thought I was being more efficient, but since it can cause confusion, I'll do them one at a time from now on. I think you did not get one of them , I'll go finish that one now. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo23:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take would be that these are right on the borderline of notability - The artist's article asserts little notability, and it seems that it's only the fact that Nowhere and Everywhere charted (but only at #40 on a niche chart) that's keeping the whole collection of articles afloat. Tricky one! Black Kite23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My AGF was a bit too high, and I took the participant on their word that each album had charted hits. Upon closer inspection, I easily determined that relist was a good idea to get more eyes on it. I have undone my closing and will now relist both of these. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, your closure of this AfD was blatantly inappropriate. Your edit summary "keep (obviously)" and your closure rationale "All high schools are inherently notable" clearly demonstrate that you are biased within the controversial topic of school notability and should therefore have excused yourself from closing this AfD. As an administrator, you should know this well, and you should also know that there is no policy or guideline stipulating that "all high schools are notable" (thus making your remark not only inappropriate but also utterly false). The outcome of the discussion may have been "keep", but you did it in an unacceptable way. I request that you undo your closure and await for another administrator to conduct it. Please do not regard my tone as an angry one. Regards, Húsönd00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, your post in the DRV was amazingly unhelpful, Jerry - essentially, you said that no matter the discussion in DRV, the result wasn't going to change, and furthermore, we were both wasting time by belaboring the point and unfairly characterizing the actions of the closing admin.
And my comments were assholic and of "overarching bad faith"? Granted, I took umbrage at your overarching bad faith assumptions that we were only in the DRV to blow off steam, and not to point out a valid problem. You were treated to some of your own medicine. Bitter, was it?
Either way, I am not interested in the excessive drama that these interpersonal tiffs between users create; in our in stance, i guess I am as much to blame as you. I am sure that you were just having a bad time, what with the ANI and all, and responded out of exasperation. I should have taken that into account, and provided you more good faith than I did. Taking that into consideration, I apologize for not being polite and pleasant. - Hexhand (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of NimbleX. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I think that your talk page warning about DRV drama notwithstanding, wikidrama has already happened at AN/I, so a DRV was inevitable per the discussion there. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Latino ice hockey players AfD close
Hi Jerry. You closed List of Latino ice hockey players AfD with no consensus, giving the reason I "find that the arguments on both sides are by in large flawed, or subjective." The close left little to no guidance on how to improve the discussion the next time the page is listed at AfD. What should the participants of the next AfD focus on? Also what Wikipedia policy/guideline(s) should be applied to such a list and would you please give an example of a non flawed, objective arguments for such a list. Thanks. -- Suntag☼12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the civil and considerate approach you have taken, and I respect your concern and interest. I want to give you a well-reasoned and informative reply, so I must ask for your patience, as it will be about 12 hours before I will have the time to give this my full attention. I will review my closing and rationale, provide an elaboration of same on the AfD talk page, and provide you with the feedback you requested above. Thanks again for this opportunity to discuss this without unnecessary drahmaz. I wish more editors who have concerns about AfD outcomes were like you :) Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In addition to the above, it would help to detail "Counterarguments present for most from other side." I'm guessing that you mean positions like Keep because deleting it would be xxx and Delete because no reason to keep, keeping would be bad, etc. As for the 12 hours, I'm in no hurry and I'm not going to DRV a no-consensus close. Thanks again. -- Suntag☼13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks for doing the thankless job of closing AfDs. If you close an AfD the way people want, they won't thank you since that is the way it should have been close. If you close an AfD opposite the way people want, they certainly won't thank you. -- Suntag☼13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I actually already did a comprehensive analysis of my closing, which you probably already read on the talk page for the AfD, since you quoted my summary there, above. That was the bit that I thought would take quite a bit of a delay for me to be able to do.
When I criticized the opinions expressed in the article as being too subjective and not objective enough, I mean making statements like "delete - this is not the kind of thing that is appropriate for a list", and "keep - this is the kind of thing that is appropriate for a list". For every such subjective argument, there is an opening for somebody to just make a counter argument; and as you can see in the discussion, that's exactly what happened. Here is an example that does not apply to the AfD we are taling about, but I think it illustrates objective versus subjective argumentation: for every "this article is too short", somebody can say "this article is too long". It's better to say "Per SIZE, articles should be kept to below 50kb, and this one is already 210kb, so merging back in additional content would not be appropriate." Then the other guys can't just counter you except to say that they do not agree with the MOSDAB, which will not get them very far in the closing rationale. You see, AfD is not a vote. So 12 people saying one subjective thing, and 3 saying the opposite is actually a stalemate; the side with the most votes does not win. It's the side with the most convincing arguments, and by convincing I mean objective, verifiable, and based on policy, guideline, widely-accepted essay or precedent, and/ or consistent with the vast majority of similar AfD outcomes.
Participants who seek deletion of the list article in a future AfD should focus on reasons for deletion, as shown in the deletion policy at Wikipedia:DEL#REASON. Then for the criteria they feel should warrant deletion, back-up their claims with guidelines or the like. Like if the list is seen as inciscriminate, then say why it is indiscriminate. If it is deemed just not suitable for an encyclopedia, cite a specific reason why from What Wikipedia is not. Participants who advocate keeping the article should point out any subjective arguments made by the deleters, and make their own objective observations, such as article contains encyclopedic content, is verifiable and notable. And back up these claims with specific examples, citations, and policies, guidelines and the like.
Finally, there is enough wiggle room that for some subjects, there is a possibility that there will be equally sound reasons for deletion and for keeping, all with appropriate relevance to policies. These articles are kept by default, unless they go against certain trumping directives, such as our Biographies of living persons rule or WP:COPYRIGHT problems.
I've gone ahead and reopened this AfD, as you indicated this was okay at the DRV. I left a note with your close and its diff, but you might want to go explain why you believe it should be deleted (it'll likely help it close as delete later, too). Anyway, just a heads up. Cheers, man. lifebaka++14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you recently and pointlessly deleted my first real articles from scratch. After spending much time cleaning it up and fixing it, you decided to delete it.
All you wikipedia Nazi's are some of the most rabid on the net, it is full of double standards and fantasy. I have fought a couple of all out edit war's and decided it was not worth my time or the stress.
Now if I see 2 links describing something I will choose the non wikipedia one. The most reasoned argument can be based on total fantasy and it win's out.
Please help me shed some light on your deletion with no prior notifications or tips to improve it.
You seem to misunderstand. I removed the speedy deletion tag so that it will not be immediately deleted. When I did that, I also removed your hangon template, because that is only needed on articles with a speedy deletion tag. The article may still be nominated for deletion through the articles for deletion process, but that would occur only after a 5-day listing and full discussion, during which you could improve the article and participate in the discussion. So in short, I am not trying to delete it, I am just cleaning up the unnecessary tag. That tag (hagnon) puts the article into the category:candidates for speedy deletion, so you don't want it there. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your own talkpage. There are messages on it from other editors who have tried to inform you about that. Alternatively, look at the history tab of the article itself. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRV
Jerry,
You may not be aware but the DRV you just closed was instigated by FPAS. Not sure if I've understand your comments correctly but the iFD decision was actually keep. Justintalk22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it now. I did make a boo boo in the wording of the close. But the effect is the same. I deleted the image and removed it from the article. I realize that's against your position, but this was after considerable thought and review of all of the arguments. Perhaps a surprise that I agree with FPaS on this one, but he was right, based on the consensus in the discussion. My own opinion is that we should loosen up our NFC rules, but if and until we do, we should follow them, eh? Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo22:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, I don't have a problem with the decision. I might not agree with your decision but I respect the fact that you listened to the argument. I still think there should be some latitude for soldiers etc because the possibility of a free image just doesn't arise once they retire and it is already within the rules. However, if others don't agree I've no intention of uploading any images until the question is settled either way. Justintalk22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't agree with the outcome, I can see that you clearly understood the arguments of both camps and judged accordingly. Best wishes. Axl¤[Talk]07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely out of order edit warring to close an ANI discussion about your own actions, but considering it is a discussion to review your ignoring of consensus, it is not surprising. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any further communication from you on this page shall be considered harassment, and will be dealt with as such. I do have the right of last word on my own talk page, as you do on yours. This thread is closed. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo22:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Nandrews.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
That's fine. I saw some promise in the very late participation to sway the outcome to keep. I was uncertain how private correspondence could be used as references, but they certainly did seem to backup the claims that were made in the article. People's objection to the article seemed to stem from plain not believing that the company was used as a training resource by most of the large armies of the world. Letters of commendation and thanks from each army that clearly demonstrate that they do indeed provide such training, I thought, would alleviate those concerns. It's too bad this information came so late in the debate. I was going to recommend that they scan them in and save them as images, but I have not seen that done elsewhere, so I decided to just relist it and see what others said. But I don't have a really strong opinion on it, so your close seems acceptable. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a lost cause, unfortunately. There are far too many people interested in wikilawyering to try to do anything practical. We'd rather follow the rules into a blazing fire than to bend them to nirvana. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo21:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
.png){kind=link}
